Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40307828›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

A scoping review of the ethical issues in gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals.

Shilpa Surendran, Hui Jin Toh, Teck Chuan Voo, Chuan De Foo, Michael Dunn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Shilpa SurendranCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 10 Medical Dr #02 - 03 MD, Singapore, 117597, Singapore. e0178075@u.nus.edu.
Hui Jin TohCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 10 Medical Dr #02 - 03 MD, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.
Teck Chuan VooOffice of Ethics in Healthcare, SingHealth, SingHealth-Duke NUS Medical Humanities Institute, 10 Hospital Blvd, Singapore, 168582, Singapore.
Chuan De FooDuke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
Michael DunnCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 10 Medical Dr #02 - 03 MD, Singapore, 117597, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, there is a notable increase in recognising the health needs of transgender and gender-diverse individuals. As a result, gender-affirming care services are evolving and expanding in many parts of the world, and this has provoked increased debate on various aspects of the interventions that comprise such care. Resolution of these debates depends on addressing important ethical issues. This scoping review aims to identify the key ethical issues and arguments regarding gender-affirming care across various medical interventions.

methodsWe searched Embase, PubMed and SCOPUS to identify peer-reviewed publications that could meet some eligibility criteria such as publications presenting an ethical issue, argument, or principle related to gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals and having been published from 2012 to 2023. We applied Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework. The text of included publications was analysed inductively.

resultsEighty-two publications were identified for inclusion. Sixty-two publications (76%) were published in or after 2019, and 20 (24%) between 2012 and 2018. Five aspects of gender-affirming care that draw ethical analysis or debates were identified: decision-making process, guideline and model of care, deletion of health data, funding, and fertility preservation and services. Ethical issues and arguments were identified within each aspect of care. The arguments are organised according to the four principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.

conclusionThis scoping review captures the key ethical issues in various aspects of gender-affirming care. There were substantial differences in the depth to which each aspect of gender-affirming care was discussed, with ethical issues in decision-making processes receiving the most attention, and deletion of health data given the least attention. This review also characterises the dominant ethical arguments and underlying principles used to justify positions on the issues. Within each ethical issue, the four principles of biomedical ethics featured commonly, but were applied very differently and accorded unequal weighting. Additionally, in some discussions, arguments supporting medical interventions were given more attention; in others, the rationales opposing medical interventions were dominant. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was limited resolution and increasing disagreement. Important constraints in the methodologies of argumentation used to support or oppose aspects of gender-affirming care were also identified.

Indexed as

Gender-Affirming CareTransgender PersonsFemaleGender-Affirming ProceduresHumansMaleDecision-makingEthical issuesFertility preservationGender-affirming careGender-diverse personsPrinciplismScoping reviewTransgender persons

Identifiers

PMID40307828
PMCPMC12042320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.